I'm disappointed by the intemperate tone and conclusion. Since their testing accorded with my experience of lenses before, I don't doubt their conclusions from their particular sample of the lens, but there seems to be no suspicion on their part which made them find another sample and instead they come out with a petulant response. I read an amateur who would buy three Sigma lenses and kept the best one. Maybe that's the kind of thing lenstip should have done.

I'm disappointed by the intemperate tone and conclusion. Since their testing accorded with my experience of lenses before, I don't doubt their conclusions from their particular sample of the lens, but there seems to be no suspicion on their part which made them find another sample and instead they come out with a petulant response. I read an amateur who would buy three Sigma lenses and kept the best one. Maybe that's the kind of thing lenstip should have done.

A balanced reaction to the review. . . wow... not full of emotional huff...

Lol..

Yes, I strongly would agree..... the thing is, some people have taken it and seem to be (methaphorically) running around screaming...

Good gosh, its just a lens. Not a cherished pet or such.

The logical thing is to try to understand the difference between the poor showing on the charts (vs the excellent showing that both the equally *artistic* rendering (isn't it all art ? ) Zeiss and Voigtlander 58's and its real world use, just as for those two.

Not to bang down Lenstip doors.

I fully agree with you, the sensible thing would be to query the Lens re variation, or if not to actually try to understand the issue properly.

Understanding and knowledge is an evolving process.

I am by far from any lens or optical technician let alone engineer, but the curioisity in me pushes to query the issue, to attempt an understanding with my limited knowledge.

Especially at apertures like f/1.4 at or near image corner where most of the image is usually out of focus

Bingo! This lens was not designed by Nikon to be a landscape lens. SLR Gear says that its corners are not sharp at any aperture.

It was obviously designed to be the amazing artistic lens that it is proving to be. Apparently, a lens can't have everything in one package. So what do you want?

Sure, a bit sharper wide-open would be nice, but there must have been a design trade-off that Nikon had to make that they felt was more important in order to maintain their design objectives, as opposed to a bitingly sharp lens at f/1.4.

- which also means that how out of focus looks (bokeh) is quite important. Nice background bokeh is often produced by undercorrected spherical aberration and that one is enemy of sharpness. See more in my page on bokeh:http://jtra.cz/stuff/essays/bokeh/index.html

-- hide signature --

The Five 'Ps' of Photography:*Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance!*

I have a 58 1.4 and really do like it. Testing and reviews really do nothing for me and pay no serious attention. Funny really cause I really like my 58 1.4. In the end....Isnt that all that is important??

Don't waste your time with reviews. Go to the shop and look at it. Shoot with it. Like it. Good. buy it. Don't like it? Good. go get the Nikon/ Zeiss/ Sigma 50/55. Just my $.02.

Really, they've descended into pointless and unjustified trashing in recent months, presumably to drive traffic to their site. Their review of the 16-35 was over the too, as was their review of the two zeiss touit lenses for CSCs.

Really, they've descended into pointless and unjustified trashing in recent months, presumably to drive traffic to their site. Their review of the 16-35 was over the too, as was their review of the two zeiss touit lenses for CSCs.

I'm not sure how negative lens reviews would drive traffic to their site. They don't post sensationalistic headlines, and the actual summaries of the reviews are pretty well buried behind all of the analytics they perform in order to reach their conclusions.

Seems to me, if they were only interested in maximizing traffic to their site, they would have published the 16-35 review years ago, when they first got a copy and found it unsatisfactory. Why sit on the negative review for two years if your goal is to maximize traffic? They essentially lost two years of traffic waiting for a second copy of the lens when they felt it necessary to confirm the findings of their initial tests.

Plus, if they're only interested in driving traffic to their site, and only negative reviews allow them to maximize said traffic - why all the positive reviews? Why the positive review of the 18-35, or the Sigma 35mm? Wouldn't that hurt their intended goal if said goal is to publish negative reviews to drive traffic to their site?

You may disagree with their testing methodology, but slandering their intentions makes it look like you're the one with the agenda, not them.

Part of the issue with the 58 1.4 it seems, is that it doesn't excel across the board at everything. That may be important to some, but not others....

But, for the right uses, in the right hands, I've seen enough to conclude that it can produce striking images, some of which would be hard to match with most of the other 50'ish offerings.

By the way, the lenses that I own that I would say function at a high level for many types of uses might be the 200VR, Zeiss 100/2 (yes, even if it can have significant CA at wide apertures in some situations) and the Zeiss 135.

The Zeiss 100 in particular, excels at macro (well, 1:2 anyway), landscapes, portraits, as well as other uses; even the occasional lucky shot with a fast moving target and/or wildlife :

Really, they've descended into pointless and unjustified trashing in recent months, presumably to drive traffic to their site. Their review of the 16-35 was over the too, as was their review of the two zeiss touit lenses for CSCs.

I'm not sure how negative lens reviews would drive traffic to their site. They don't post sensationalistic headlines, and the actual summaries of the reviews are pretty well buried behind all of the analytics they perform in order to reach their conclusions.

Seems to me, if they were only interested in maximizing traffic to their site, they would have published the 16-35 review years ago, when they first got a copy and found it unsatisfactory. Why sit on the negative review for two years if your goal is to maximize traffic? They essentially lost two years of traffic waiting for a second copy of the lens when they felt it necessary to confirm the findings of their initial tests.

Plus, if they're only interested in driving traffic to their site, and only negative reviews allow them to maximize said traffic - why all the positive reviews? Why the positive review of the 18-35, or the Sigma 35mm? Wouldn't that hurt their intended goal if said goal is to publish negative reviews to drive traffic to their site?

You may disagree with their testing methodology, but slandering their intentions makes it look like you're the one with the agenda, not them.

You canot argue with the actual tests they do, although whether a lens' true potential is really demonstrated by this kind of testing is something I do question in many cases. What you can argue with is the sometimes oversensational conclusions. The lenses I gave above are examples, another would be the oly 17 f1.8. Basically, they seem to go way overboard in trashing some lenses that are actually pretty good. You are correct that I don't know why they do it (I have made assumptions) but do it they do...

These forums are losing value. They're filled with envious onlookers who resent working professionals. The 58 is a tool. If you need a tool for your job, you get it, you use it. If it's unsatisfactory, you dispose of it, and get something that does the job. It's really as simple as that.

I'm a big analogy person.

I used to work as a service writer at a car dealership. Most of the good mechanics bought "snap on" tools. They are very expensive but there is a reason these guys buy them. Of course amateur mechanics buy something like craftsman tools for 15% of the cost and say these same type "that snap on 14mm wrench doesn't do anything that couldn't be done with any 14mm wrench" while not understanding the real differences. You can measure both in a lab and they seem the same. Actually you might find the cheaper tools are closer to some "exact spec" but that doesn't make them better.

I personally am not interested in buying the 58 and do feel the price is too high. But if next year Nikon has lets say a $300 rebate on it, I would be tempted. The images it produces are lovely, I can't say the same for the 50mm f1.8G or the 50mm f1.4G, both of which I have used.

The 50mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.4 do not always render with a smooth bokeh, That is true. The 50mm f1.4 is not the sharpest lens either, that is also true. What is also true is that the 58mm f1.4 usually has pretty nice bokeh.

However, the 58mm f1.4 does perform below par, there is no reason for it being so soft. Lenses can be sharp/sharpish and deliver good bokeh and low coma. And then all the blurb about the coma performance, from Nikon press releases. While it has lower coma than some other lenses, it is pretty disappointing still, considering all the claims made...

There is also no good reason for its price. It doesn't contain a lot of glass, and while aspherical elements are more expensive than regular elements to manufacture, 2 small aspherical elements do not cost $1200 per lens. Nor is the build quality of a higher level.

The original Noct-Nikkor was expensive because it contained a bit more glass (being an f1.2 design) and back then when it was introduced, aspherical elements were expensive to produce (production of them has advanced since then).

There is also no good reason for its price. It doesn't contain a lot of glass, and while aspherical elements are more expensive than regular elements to manufacture, 2 small aspherical elements do not cost $1200 per lens. Nor is the build quality of a higher level.

The original Noct-Nikkor was expensive because it contained a bit more glass (being an f1.2 design) and back then when it was introduced, aspherical elements were expensive to produce (production of them has advanced since then).

People who buy one needn't worry. All Nikon needs to do is constrict supply and call it a "Limited edition". The price will go up, extravagant legends will build up around it, and the best part is that there won't be enough copies floating around to hurt the company's reputation overall.